Am I a crank?
in [Math]
|
Prev: Any coordinate system in GR?
Next: Euclidean Spaces
From: Virgil on 3 Sep 2006 19:27 In article <qbamf2pm9e5q8bhlk3p5632mj51jo3jqbi(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:31:33 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <gk1mf2hbguko7fga1qekpq3vmtc2g2qe2b(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 17:23:40 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> > > > >> >Lester Zick wrote: > >> >> Mechanically "infinity" just refers to the number of infinitessimals. > >> >Lester Zick wrote: > >> > > infinity contains finite numbers. > >> > > >> >As neither of these is a satisfactory definition of infinity, Zick > >> >has not defined "infinity" satisfactorily. > > > >> > >> I daresay to a grammarian it wouldn't appear so. > > > >Nor to anyone else of sense. > > Nor to anyone senseless. Zick, of course, only speaks for himself. > > >> >independent of context, Zick has not produced a satisfactory definition > >> >of it at all. > >> > >> Of what exactly? > > > >Of what Zick attempted. but failed. to define adequately. > > Which might be what, sport? As Zick did not define it adequately, no one knows.
From: Virgil on 3 Sep 2006 19:28 In article <gdamf2ti6bgo0k2eedvgbku4r8a93rs76q(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:02:04 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <t40mf2dhoi7bvlmbhun3pm69cb9r2j4vpj(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 19:32:54 -0400, "Jesse F. Hughes" > >> <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > >> > >> >Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> writes: > >> > > >> >> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:46:04 -0400, "Jesse F. Hughes" > >> >> <jesse(a)phiwumbda.org> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>Now, if you ask whether the axioms of arithmetic suffice to prove > >> >>>10/5 = 2, well that's a different matter. But Han sure as heck did > >> >>>not check. > >> >> > >> >> Some reason he should? > >> > > >> >No reason at all. Aside from the fact that he *said* that he checked > >> >it with the axioms. > >> > >> So either arithmetic theorems are inconsistent with arithmetic axioms > >> or one can't rely on them as representative of axioms in particular > >> contexts? > >> > >> >This was a lie. > >> > >> Oh how you do go on. > >> > >> > A harmless exaggeration, perhaps. > >> > >> A bit like transcendentals are irrationals perhaps? > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > No great moral > >> >failing, > >> > >> Except in the eyes of those who call it a lie. > >> > >> > but for some reason you seem completely unable to see this > >> >point. Han said he did something he did not do. > >> > >> Then arithmetic theorems are indeed not representative of arithmetic > >> axioms in arithmetic contexts. You lie! > > > >Zick calling someone else a liar is arrogance. > > But true arrogance. And the only thing true about Zick!
From: Virgil on 3 Sep 2006 19:32 In article <ieamf2h3u904jqk0ft0t0o9le5k8nh0h72(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:04:45 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >> >But that level of moral/ethical obligation is clearly quite foreign to > >> >Zick. > >> > >> Just as the truth is to you. As Zick cannot, or at least has not, said unambiguously what he means by "truth", he is saying nothing. > > > >Zick says that because he is entirely incapable of recognizing truth. > > Whereas you're the arbiter of truth. Should I believe it because Zick claims it?
From: Virgil on 3 Sep 2006 19:35 In article <aiamf2pm9egrg79vo5bjtlgrvvs48mb1bb(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:06:41 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <qi0mf2h3lr9lb4vu06bp5063d5tduq5f47(a)4ax.com>, > > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 21:56:47 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> > >> >In article <4t4kf2phpmptgut1bepl91pfbie4eab4nq(a)4ax.com>, > >> > Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 15:54:26 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> >Zick seems to object to anyone else having an opinion of what "true" > >> >> >means, and to bolster his own Know-Nothing position declines to > >> >> >express > >> >> >any opinion of his own on what "true" means. > >> >> > >> >> Only because I don't know how to issue declarations. > >> > > >> >You just issued one anyway! > >> > >> How do you know that's true? > >> > >The truth of Zick's declarations is his own responsibility. > > But the truth of yours is not. Except that Zick seems, for some odd reason, to want to make the truth of my declarations his responsibility. > > >But it is one he honours more in the breach than in the observance. > > Whereas you honor most everything in the breach. For someone as yet unbreached, Zick is too rapid to leap into the breach. > > ~v~~
From: Virgil on 3 Sep 2006 19:44
In article <vnamf21ivup6odfi0kc91mmp637thv6j8e(a)4ax.com>, Lester Zick <dontbother(a)nowhere.net> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:51:47 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >In article <1157304905.224581.305990(a)74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>, > > Han.deBruijn(a)DTO.TUDelft.NL wrote: > > > >> John Schutkeker wrote: > >> > >> > Did the professors that you showed it to have have any specific > >> > complaints, or did they just say "Everybody knows that it can't be > >> > done"? > >> > >> This: "Sorry, mr. de Bruijn, it is _us_ who do the research here". > >> > >> Han de Bruijn > > > >Any professor speaking English ought to have said > >"It is _we_ who do the research here". > > Truth as a function of grammar? > Proper grammatical usage as a function of the language used. Different languages treat "to be" differently. In English, "it is we who do....." is correct, in some other languages the subjective case "we" should be the objective case "us" as object of a verb, even the verb, "to be", and so would translate word for word to English as"it is us who do...", even though that is not grammatically correct English. |